WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

[plague311]

Has anyone ever come up with a step by step hypothesis/analysis showing how explosives/thermite would have been used to bring down WTC7 complete with calculations and computer models? One that agrees with all the video, eyewitness accounts, and photos?

Red, answer that. I know you won't because you literally have nothing. You can point a couple of spots through the NIST report that might not add up. I mean, after all it's just an event nothing like anything that has happened before. Why shouldn't everything be nothing but exact to the T? I wonder what team twoofers would possibly find that could explain every little detail as far as every single part of the entire event that happened on 9/11? What an extremely stupid dream.

RedIbis should be ignored until we see his answer to the previously placed question. After all, he expects everything explained but does no explaining his self. Red ignores evidence any chance he possibly can but cries wolf when he deems other people are doing the same.

Good work Red, you're a shining twoofer beacon in the night. Showing a real example of how to act when you're apart of the twoof stagnant.

 

[RedIbis]

Yes, Physical evidence is key. NIST has collapsed building material and fire damage.

No they don't. They admitted that they did not use any physical evidence when coming up with their collapse scenarios.

They showed how a fire damaged building can collapse.

They proposed two unprecedented phenomena and neglected to support it with any physical evidence.

What Physical evidence of an alternative hypothesis is there? I still see none.

By this illogic, NIST doesn't have to support extraordinary claims with physical evidence because Twoofies don't. That's ridiculous.

 

[Gamolon]

No it doesn't. It's just a rationalization as to why there is no physical evidence to justify your belief in NIST's hypotheses. I honestly think you don't believe physical evidence makes any difference. Much like I honestly think most of the so-called "debunkers" don't believe physical evidence makes much difference.

You're telling me what I think and what I am rationalizing? That's not only arrogant, but stupid.

 

[carlitos]

The sum total of materials testing through history is physical evidence, even if used in a modeling exercise.

 

[000063]

No they don't. They admitted that they did not use any physical evidence when coming up with their collapse scenarios.

Citation needed.

They proposed two unprecedented phenomena and neglected to support it with any physical evidence.

Is this your latest life preserver? "physical evidence...physical evidence...physical evidence..."

By this illogic, NIST doesn't have to support extraordinary claims with physical evidence because Twoofies don't. That's ridiculous.

You're missing the point; if NIST needs physical evidence, so do Truthers.

 

[NoahFence]

No they don't. They admitted that they did not use any physical evidence when coming up with their collapse scenarios.

And yet, nothing has changed. 9/11 is still 19 Hijackers + 4 Aircraft.

They proposed two unprecedented phenomena and neglected to support it with any physical evidence.

Amazingly, even if they did support it with physical evidence, nothing would be different.

By this illogic, NIST doesn't have to support extraordinary claims with physical evidence because Twoofies don't. That's ridiculous.

If NIST made any extraordinary claims, they'd support it. As it happens, they didn't. Nothing changes.

 

[Gamolon]

No they don't. They admitted that they did not use any physical evidence when coming up with their collapse scenarios.

I'll ask you again.

What kind of evidence would sate your disbelief in the collapse scenario provided by NIST in regards to the girder walk off?

Would they need to provide the actual girder? The elongated floor beams? Sheared bolts?

Why would you believe this physical evidence anyways? If they are capable of pulling off a conspiracy that consisted of thousands of people (all required to keep quiet), holograms, thermite/explosive demolition of three buildings, a flyover over the Pentagon, planted plane parts and light poles, the actual planting of the thermite/explosives in all three buildings, a 730 page analysis of the collapse of WTC7 (all of which is fake), etc., what makes you think they couldn't fake physical evidence in addition to all that?

Why can't you just answer the questions?

 

[LSSBB]

No they don't. They admitted that they did not use any physical evidence when coming up with their collapse scenarios.


They proposed two unprecedented phenomena and neglected to support it with any physical evidence.


By this illogic, NIST doesn't have to support extraordinary claims with physical evidence because Twoofies don't. That's ridiculous.

They DIDN'T have collapsed buildings or fire damage???!?!

 

[Gamolon]

No they don't. They admitted that they did not use any physical evidence when coming up with their collapse scenarios.

Do you trust the airplane mechanics when they say that they looked the plane over and it looks good or do you demand that they show you every inch of the plane before you board it?

When a skyscraper is designed based on calculations, models, and drawings, do you first demand a test skyscraper be constructed from those before you set foot in the "real" skyscraper or do you trust that the engineers and designers know what they are doing?

Do you hold those whose conspiracy claims you believe in to the same standards? Which conspiracy theories DO you believe in or do you think are more credible than the official story?

 

[Oystein]

The physical evidence that RedIbis wants to see (even though he dishonestly refuses to say what he would accept, so he can keep saying "no") is actual structural members recovered from WTC7.

This evidence does not exist. Truthers love to point out that is has been shipped to China where it was melted.

This physical evidence is not ever going to show up.


If RedIbis, and truthers like him, REALLY only accept ANY collapse theory at all if physical evidence is provided, then it follos logically that RedIbis, and truthers like him, will NEVER accept ANY collapse theory at all, because we know that all the physical evidence is destroyed. This includes any possible truther theory of intentional demolition.



The question then is: RedIbis, are you prepared to ever accept any theory of intenional demolition for WTC7?

 

[SlightlyAbovePar]

I mean this 100% sincerely: why are we still talking about this? At this point truthers coming here to "stir the pot" are simply attention seeking head cases. The argument *is* the point to them, not some better understanding of events based on, you know, facts.

I am not nearly as educated as many of you. I am not an engineer or a scientist (awesome for those of you who are!). The thing is, neither are the truthers who delve into the fine, fine minutia of structural beams, fracture lines or the color of Atta's panties. The evidence for what I am claiming is in the very nature of their supposed questions. You don't have to get nearly this deep to have a very functional, rational, easy explainable understanding of the general principles involved.

I'm of average intelligence, average education and I clearly "get it". I can easily explain, in general terms, how the buildings came down, why they came down and the sequence of events that awful day. At this point - March 2012 - anyone who doesn't understand is willfully ignorant, or attention seeking.

Don't feed the wildlife. It's not healthy for them, or for us. Just stop.

 

[SlightlyAbovePar]

On the other hand, if this is like roasting ants with a magnifying glass to you; forget I said anything.

Carry on.

 

[SlightlyAbovePar]

I'll ask you again.

Would they need to provide the actual girder? The elongated floor beams? Sheared bolts?

Politely edited by me, some items left out

The answer is whichever of those items you don't have, cannot produce or has the least data sets attributed to it. Entertaining any demands of evidence that rise to this level is proof enough, at least to me, that we (you) are engaged in the functional equivalent of trying to pee out of a moving helicopter.


Yeah, I tried that. It didn't work & my fellow crew members were not happy, if not a little cooler.

 

[funk de fino]

They proposed two unprecedented phenomena and neglected to support it with any physical evidence.

Ah, the usual repeated lie from Red.

 

[jaydeehess]

You don't have to be an expert to know that novel hypotheses require physical evidence.

The tests that showed linear expansion are not physical evidence ofg course. They are docuementary evidence.

However, exactly what physical evidence would you suppose would support the walk off claim?

How would such structural parts of WTC 7 be identified?

 

[jaydeehess]

The sum total of materials testing through history is physical evidence, even if used in a modeling exercise.

I believe that is termed docuementary evidence.

 

[jaydeehess]

No they don't. They admitted that they did not use any physical evidence when coming up with their collapse scenarios.

see my post above

They proposed two unprecedented phenomena and neglected to support it with any physical evidence.

Untrue, there is a century of docuemented testing of the behaviour of steel in fires including physical evidence obtained in other structural fires. That individual components of WTC cannot be positively identified remains the most compelling reason why none of the members involved in the NIST scenario were used.

By this illogic, NIST doesn't have to support extraordinary claims with physical evidence because Twoofies don't. That's ridiculous.

In fact it is your contention that physical evidence is required to put forth a scenario of how the structure fell, and yet the 911 conspiracy has none and yet managed to claim a controlled demolition. How is that possible if physical evidence is required to positively state such a conclusion?

Actually, the 911 conspiracy cadre should at least attempt a scenario as detailed as the one put forth by NIST using docuementary evidence and testing of their own.

 

[carlitos]

I believe that is termed docuementary evidence.

Fair point, thanks.

 

[Christopher7]

[NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 527 [pdf pg189]
"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."

A W33x130 beam has an 11.5 inch flange
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=ede17dee1c6001777a2f9c9c4280baa6

and the seat is wider than the flange so it's at least 12 inches wide, not 11 inches.
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/2503/fig821.jpg

That means that the beams would have to expand at least 6 inches.


Using the formula an page 343-344 0f NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1
Substituting the length of the beams - 52 feet x 12 = 624 inches

If a 52 foot (624 in.) long beam is heated so as to uniformly increase its temperature by 600 ^ºC, and the coefficient of thermal expansion is taken to be 1.4x10-5 / ^ºC, the elongation would be,
S_t= (1.4x10^-5 / ºC) × (600 ºC) × (624 in.)

0.000014 x 600 = 0.0084 x 624 = 5.24 inches

0.000014 x 630 = 0.0088 x 624 = 5.50

0.000014 x 688 = 0.0096 x 624 = 6.01

Ambient temperature is 22^oC or 72^oF

So the beams would have to be heated to 700^oC to expand 6 inches.

Since everyone seems to have missed the point;

NIST lied about the width of the seat. And because of that lie they removed the girder and the beams supported by it when it had expanded 5.5 inches - but it would not have fallen then. It would have taken another 70^oC for the beams to expand enough to push the girder off its seat

Between 630^oC and 700^oC the beams would have sagged as they lost up to 80% of their strength and would start pulling the girder back the other way. The "rock to the east" was NOT the final theory, it was just an interim data gathering test.

The official cause of the girder failure in the final report is: The expanding floor beams pushed a girder off its seat and that started the collapse of WTC 7.

But the beams did not and could not have pushed the girder off its seat.

 

[LSSBB]

The width of the seat is on the plans. See post #6 & #8 of this thread.

From post #29
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 527 [pdf pg189]
"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."

A W33x130 beam has an 11.5 inch flange
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehou...2f9c9c4280baa6

and the seat is wider than the flange so it's at least 12 inches wide, not 11 inches.
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/2503/fig821.jpg

Provide NIST your feedback and request a response.